W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > December 2012

Re: Comments on Fragment Identifier draft

From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2012 14:01:12 +0000
To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
Cc: "www-tag\@w3.org List" <www-tag@w3.org>
Message-ID: <f5b8v8s6cwn.fsf@calexico.inf.ed.ac.uk>
[Responding to one point only, w/o prejudice wrt the rest, thanks for
your detailed feedback]

Richard Cyganiak writes:

> 4. I tried to follow along with this example by looking up the
> relevant specs at IETF and W3C:
> [[ 
> For example, the media type registration for application/rdf+xml
> must include fragid rules that adhere to those specified in the
> +suffix registration for +xml. If a application/rdf+xml document
> contained an element with a @xml:id attribute with the value me then
> the fragid #me would be interpreted as referring to that element by
> generic XML processors. It would be inconsistent for other
> applications to interpret the #me fragid to refer to a person, and
> the media type registration for application/rdf+xml should not allow
> such an interpretation.
> ]]
> Basically, the line of reasoning that leads to this conclusion is
> *very* thin, and barely held together by proposed but
> not-yet-accepted IETF documents, links to expired drafts, documents
> with ten-years-outdated information, and an appeal to “mechanisms
> outside the scope of this specification”.
> Especially the fact that the entire +suffix registry seems to be
> still a draft shakes my confidence in accepting the proposed Best
> Practices as such.
> I think the document should address more clearly the current state
> of things at IETF.

The IETF has initiated efforts over the last six months, in
part in cooperation with the TAG, to clean up a number of areas around
media type registration where practice has gotten ahead of process.
The official status of +suffix registrations in general, and a new own
for +xml in particular, is being, shall we say, regularised.  This
IETF work has been coordinated with the development of the
TAG's Fragment Identifier finding, and the two support and re-inforce
each other.  Both sides have consciously adopted the position that
it's better to go forward in parallel than go through a complicated
"after you Alphonse" dance.

So, I disagree that it would be in any way useful to move the Fragment
Identifier draft back into the IETF "official present", which will
very soon be the official past, as such a move would make it obsolete
virtually on publication.

       Henry S. Thompson, School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh
      10 Crichton Street, Edinburgh EH8 9AB, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
                Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk
                       URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
 [mail from me _always_ has a .sig like this -- mail without it is forged spam]
Received on Thursday, 20 December 2012 14:01:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:33:18 UTC